I can do it!!

Author Archive

Cultural Push-back…

Rainbow White HouseCommentary Analysis

by

L. A. Marzulli

The picture shown here is a mockery of what I believe most Americans hold to, which is the sanctity of marriage.  Marriage would be defined by most people, all over the globe, as the union of one man and one woman.  Now just nine people—actually only five—have redefined what marriage is, in the United States.

There has already been cultural push back in the great state of Texas.  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_TEXAS?SITE=APSECTION=HOMETEMPLATE=DEFAULTCTIME=2015-06-28-20-53-42

And so it begins.  What will the Christian church do?  Yesterday I was at a restaurant, in an undisclosed location, and I went to several groups of people who were waiting to be seated and showing the picture above to them, began to discuss the gravity of where we are as country and the fact that unless the church stands up and says no, we will have lost the battle for Western civilization, as we know it.  The folks got it, but as of this post there is no movement….

Was the White House tipped off on the vote from SCOTUS?  The Obama administration made it a point to stick the decision in the face of most Americans by lighting up the White House with the Rainbow color that represents the gay movement and then tell us that Love wins. What kind of love is this?  This so-called love and unholy union between two men or two women, is an abomination to those of us who hold a Biblical world view, and who cling to our guns and Bibles. 

As Franklin Graham states, God defines what marriage is, not the Supreme court.  

http://billygraham.org/story/franklin-graham-god-defines-marriage-not-the-supreme-court/

So what do we do?  We get to the ballot box and vote everyone one out of office.  We clean house.  Get rid of every politician that voted for OBAMATRADE and we start over.  We have the Constitution, which is one of the greatest documents ever created and in that document the founding fathers set up a system the would assure the liberty of the people.  However, unless the people stand up and take back the government we are doomed to more manipulation by lobbyists and special interest groups.

The only way to save the country is to clean house.  Sweep the career politicians out of office.  Bring in men and women who will uphold our constitution and fight for the rights of the people.  Men and women who will balance the budget, and reign in our out-of-control Military/industrial complex as well as the CIA, NSA, the Federal Reserve and the IRS.

The country is at a cross-roads and unless the church stand up now, we will go the way of Rome….

Article source: https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/cultural-push-back/


June 29- Paul McGuire

Paul McGuire is the author of 26 books, a  pastor of Paradise Mountain Church, and television commentator on the Fox News Network and CNN, a former syndicated radio talk show host, professor of Eschatology  at the King’s College. McGuire has produced two science fiction feature films in Hollywood. The History Channel has done two specials with Paul, on Seven Signs of the Apocalypse and Revelation. He is an internationally recognized expert on globalism, Bible prophecy and current events. McGuire has interviewed military generals, Presidents and Prime Ministers from around the world. The former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert met with McGuire after reading his book, Are You Ready?, which talks about the prophet Ezekiel’s prediction of an invasion of Israel by nations like Russia and Iran.

He Joins Sheila to talk about his new book, ‘Mass Awakening‘ and what it means for you.

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/june-29-paul-mcguire/


The “journey” of a 10 year old transgender child. Somebody call the cops

This is a disturbing, or perhaps better described as heartbreaking story which popped up this weekend and set off all sorts of alarm bells for me. NBC News is featuring the tale of a child named Lia (until recently, Liam) who is being fully encouraged and supported by his parents on a “journey” to become a girl. The child is ten years old and began this “trip” at the age of five.

We moved from Indiana to New Hampshire when Lia was 4. She was still wearing boys’ clothes and playing with trucks through preschool, but she really wanted girl things. We started buying her Barbie dolls and girl’s costumes.

For awhile, Lia was happy wearing pink dress shirts outside and princess costumes at home. Family and friends were curious, but no one made us feel judged. However, It was when she started kindergarten, that we saw the dysphoria start, the depression and anger. It was clear she couldn’t be comfortable anymore.

Lia is the most mild-mannered, peaceful warrior, a deep thinking, soul-searching child. The minute she begins talking, it’s just pure love. But we could see the frustration building in her.

She would say desperately, “Why can’t I just be a girl, Mommy?” At just 5 years old, she would look in the mirror in the bathroom and say, “I am a girl in my head and heart.”

This goes further than a young boy being dressed up in a skirt. The parents have already gone through the legal process and changed his name from Liam to Lia. But even that, while no doubt opening the door to all sorts of confusion, isn’t the most serious aspect of what’s going on here. The introduction to the article (and the soon to air television special) informs us that Lia will soon take hormone blockers to ward off puberty.

Let me repeat that in another way just to ensure that no person reading this misses what’s going on here. The parents of this prepubescent ten year old boy have found a doctor willing to work with them and are about to chemically alter his body to halt the onset of puberty.

Just in case anyone misinterprets where I’m coming down on this story, I would insert one exhortation to the public at this point. Is there nobody in the state of New Hampshire who can call Child Protective Services, find a public defender and/or judge, call the police, or do something… ANYTHING… to get this child out of that home?

When these stories crop up in the media on a regular basis involving adults, I’ll admit that I’m a bit conflicted as to how to react. Part of it is, no doubt, a hesitancy to dig into the complicated matters of what sorts of behavior do or do not qualify as true mental disorders of a medical nature and the difficulty we have in dealing with many of them. There’s also the issue of individual choice and personal responsibility to consider. If you are over the age of 18 and want to dress as you wish, alter your system with chemicals or whatever else, I lean toward saying that it’s your choice as long as you’re willing to deal with the results. Even if you’re a man who wants to go to a doctor and have his privates lopped off or a woman who goes and schedules a procedure to do whatever it is they do to their lady bits, I don’t think it’s my place to say you can’t.

But we’re talking about a ten year old child here. And the process apparently started at the age of five. Something has gone terribly wrong in that house and this child is in serious peril. Are we now at the point where our legal system will take the “decisions” of a five year old into serious consideration on such a permanent, life altering situation? We don’t allow children to get a tattoo, give meaningful consent for sexual intercourse or even take an aspirin (without adult supervision) until a decade or more later than that. Last winter I saw a nephew in the same age group answer the question of what he wanted to be when he grew up. He responded by saying a fire truck. Not a fire fighter. A fire truck. It was a hilarious moment around the Christmas tree, but it also reminds me now that I wouldn’t be leaving it up to him as to whether or not he should start on hormone therapy next week.

But our media has clearly enabled all sorts of insanity to now be taken as normal and it’s spreading in dangerous ways. I can only hope that this television special will draw some attention and get someone on the case here, not to mention seeing if this is going on in other homes as well. Whatever doctor agreed to do this not only needs to have their license taken away… they should be in jail. And Liam needs to be gotten out of that home and into the care of a responsible adult.

I only hope it’s not too late. This isn’t an abstract question of social debate. This is a crime in progress.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/28/the-journey-of-a-10-year-old-transgender-child-somebody-call-the-cops/


Summer of Bernie update: Sanders looks for inroads in minority community

Bernie Sanders is still moving on up, at least in relative terms. This week’s polling has him closing the gap to within eight points of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Granted, it’s not enough to make the Queen in Waiting think she’s in any serious danger, but she’s got to be paying attention by now. Unfortunately for Bernie, there’s one area where Clinton is still significantly beating him: Sanders isn’t capturing much of the black and Latino vote at this point. He’s not willing to concede the battle though, and is taking steps to improve his position there.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who’s made limited headway with African American voters despite drawing large crowds on the campaign trail, on Saturday pledged “a significant expansion” in outreach to minority communities.

“We’re going to significantly increase that,” the Democratic presidential hopeful told reporters after a morning campaign stop here. “The views that we hold are important to all Americans … but to be honest with you, they’re probably more relevant to black and Hispanic voters … because the poverty rate in those communities is even higher than whites.”

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, cited his support to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and offer free college tuition as examples…

“We’re going to be bringing people into our campaign who will give us increased capability of reaching out to the African American community and the Hispanic community,” he said. “We have a lot of work to do.”

This highlights the difference between what happens inside of campaign offices on a regular basis and the perceptions which show up in the media and among the public. In terms of the nuts and bolts sausage making that goes on in campaign planning a move like this is just common sense. But you’ve also got to be careful how you handle that messaging effort. Sanders is preparing to alter his staffing and strategy in an attempt to court a specific set of demographic groups. If he were a Republican, this would be reported in Politico as pandering. Fortunately for Bernie, he’s either a socialist or a Democrat, depending on which day you ask him, so it’s going to be described as a shift in strategy and expanded outreach.

But the poll numbers highlight another problem which doesn’t get quite as much attention in the press. While it’s unfashionable to say about one of the Democrats, Sanders is just about as generic of an “old white guy” as you are likely to find, and he hails from and represents a state which is the second whitest in the nation. Is Vermont unfriendly to black residents or is it just not the sort of place which appeals to them? That’s a bit too deep down the mystery machine trail for me to tackle, but it is what it is. Hillary is at least a woman, providing the needed “diversity” quotient for her campaign and she’s inheriting a significant amount of Obama’s base by default. Bernie seems to be having a “white guy problem” in terms of the depth of his support.

Will hiring a more diverse set of staffers and scheduling more events in urban centers get the job done for him? I’m not writing the guy off yet. He’s never going to be the President, but he’s putting on an extremely game fight and he may eventually flush Hillary out of her fortress of solitude. Sign me up for the Daily Bernie newsletter because it’s at least going to be fun to watch.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/28/summer-of-bernie-update-sanders-looks-for-inroads-in-minority-community/


About that “polygamy is inevitable” thing…

On Friday, shortly after the Gaypocolypse began raining down on the media landscape like an ELE comet strike, I had already begun musing on Twitter about the no longer hypothetical slippery slope which had just opened up. To be sure, we’ve had more than a few discussions of slippery slope items in years past which were little more than hyperbole in the real world. But then, the “real world” has been changing rather rapidly in the past few years and I’ve had to take a fresh look at some items which I’d previously written off as straw men, but have now risen up like all too real zombies. For example, only a few years back I scoffed at the idea that a Christian business person could be forced to participate in a gay wedding ceremony if it violated their 1st Amendment beliefs. And of course I assumed that no preacher could ever be forced to either conduct such a ceremony or be driven out of business. (It didn’t happen with the Hitching Post, but it came close.) And don’t even get me started on the idea of redefining gender in a courtroom setting contra chromosomal arrangements.

One of the benefits of having Fridays off is that Ed is forced to tackle thorny plot twists such as these before me, so he jumped into the whole polygamy angle while the initial fight was still raging. One of the first items he offered (which ran along the same lines as the questions which immediately came to my mind) came directly from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. While I know that Chief Justice Roberts isn’t particularly popular around the ranch here these days, he brought up an interesting point which Ed highlighted.

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

Ed raised what he saw as a possible (though significantly improbable) argument against Roberts’ polygamy point, even in the brave new world of collisions between government and marriage.

Dignity and self-determination are the cornerstones of Kennedy’s championing of gay rights throughout his many landmark opinions on the subject. You could argue, when the time comes, that polygamist marriages are inherently undignified because they place women in a position of de facto subservience to men, but that’ll be a hard argument to make when you have sister-wives in front of TV cameras swearing up and down that their relationships with their husband are 100 percent equal and that they’ve never felt exploited even for a moment.

This doesn’t work for me because I never thought that the court was going to try to make a case for anything resembling the “dignity and tradition of marriage” angle. Frankly, I’m shocked that Kennedy even went so far as to say that there was any tradition involved, and where he did it looked like 95% window dressing and 5% law, intended to placate the aggrieved masses who he knew would be beating down the gates. In my view, the court was always going to be forced to treat this as some sort of legal pronouncement, void of religious or moral currency, simply saying that it was a thing which was available to some and therefore must be available to all. When you peel all the colorful excuses out of the majority decision on Friday I think that’s what they boiled it down to.

But let’s return to the real meat of this essay, which deals with the other items awaiting us in the ditches of that slippery slope. (I’ll try to keep the jiggery pokery to a minimum.) First, the most extreme examples include conversations about people marrying animals. That line of discussion should be shut down because animals can not give meaningful legal consent for anything and the court has an easy out. But once we leave American Pharoah and his friends out of the discussion, things get a bit more cloudy. I happen to think that the Chief Justice is correct when it comes to polygamy. What is the argument against plural marriage, given its far more substantial historical roots when compared to SSM? Ed’s point of wives being placed in a subservient role to men falls apart as soon as the Strong Independent Woman card is played. Further, who says it’s always multiple wives? If one woman wants to marry five men, are the men being unfairly subsumed? Mind you, I think plural marriage is a terrible idea since I have enough trouble taking care of one wife, but our legal system seems to offer no real impediments at this point.

With that said, let’s dig a little bit deeper into the rabbit hole. What restrictions between humans could the court still argue for in terms of marriage? Certainly a minimum age would be in play since we don’t allow children to provide consent. But that age already varies from state to state and some, such as Mississippi, will let you go below it if both sets of parents sign off on the deal. Will those barriers stand?

And finally, how about incest laws? Does the state and / or federal government have a vested interest in preventing siblings from marrying? In terms of protecting the next generation from genetic pitfalls, that should be possible. But once you go beyond siblings, where does that gray line get drawn? Some states will allow first cousins to marry. Once you get to second cousins it’s pretty much a free-for-all. And what will the court say to siblings who are sterile under this new set of rules? I don’t even want to venture a call on that one.

In short, the entire playing field just changed as I see it. If you remove any and all moral barriers (which is obviously possible, if not already a done deal) then where do the interests of the state begin? As I said, I’ve run around the hamster wheel in my mind for a while now, and not only do I think plural marriage is on the way, I honestly can’t come up with a legal argument against it which looks like it would hold water.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/28/about-that-polygamy-is-inevitable-thing/


What Does the Pope Supporting Palestinian Statehood, Gay Marriage and ISIL Have In Common?

Commentary Awest-point-gay-wedding-360x271nalysis

by

L. A. Marzulli

What does the Pope supporting Palestinian Statehood, Gay Marriage and ISIL Have In Common?

They all are pointing to the overwhelming fact that we are headed, at lightning speed, like a freight train on steroids, toward the Apocalypse, the unveiling, the last days, the return of the King.

If the church does not stand up now and say unequivocally, we will not obey the decision of nine people who are telling us that “gay marriage is good,” then we have no salt and our light has gone out.

If the church does not stand up and make it perfectly clear that even if the government takes away the 501C3 tax-exempt-status we will not abide by the laws of men, as they are in contradiction to a greater law and that is the law of Natures God.

The Pope has just created a line in the sand by stating his approval, support and recognition of the so-called Palestinian state.  This is a slap in the face to Israel, God’s chosen people, the people who gave us Yeshua/Jesus our messiah.  They have been gathered back into their ancient homeland never to be removed.  The Pope is on the wrong side of HIS-story and I’m not talking about the textbooks that tell us erroneously that Columbus discovered America.

ISIL continues its torture, burning, raping, looting, and other atrocities while Obummer does nothing.  Now we hear that ISIL is on our southern border!  If I may be so bold, I posted this several weeks ago and warned of this very thing.

America is at a crossroads and the soul of this once great nation was stolen years ago, in Dallas, where there was a classic coup d’état.  Our mIlitary/industrial complex has propagated endless wars. The killing continues and so does the TRILLION dollar annual opium harvest in Afghanistan.

The last straw, the final insult to the living God, is the debasing of marriage between one man and one woman.  It’s a landmark decision and pastors and every Christian should say no to the will of Nine people, being imposed on us, being shoved down our throats.

We are headed toward the time of Jacob’s Trouble.  The signs are all here, these are truly the last days….

What was written will come to pass.  What was foretold will unfold. L. A. Marzulli

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On The Trail of the Immortals

Following the release of their international best-seller, Exo-Vaticana, Thomas Horn and Cris Putnam were inundated with requests from around the world to be interviewed on radio, television, and in print media. What they discovered sent shockwaves through Christianity concerning the Vatican s advanced telescope, which sits on top of Mt. Graham in Arizona (USA) where the Jesuits admit they are monitoring something approaching the earth. After the author s initial report was published in Exo-Vaticana, the pope s top astronomer took to the airwaves and on the Vatican Observatory website to try and explain the role that he and other church astronomers are playing with regards to emerging ET Friendly theology, their association with the LUCIFER device at Mt. Graham, and their developing doctrines concerning extraterrestrial life and the impact it may have on planet Earth s religions; Christianity in particular.

$19.95

Now, armed with fresh information from the native peoples (that failed before a federal appeals court to stop the construction of the Vatican s observatory on one of their four holiest mountains), the authors set out with cameras and field investigators to unearth their most astonishing discovery yet. The mountain is said to be a portal, a gateway to another dimension. And, as the Vatican knows and the authors uncovered, it is not the only one.

NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON THE PATH OF THE IMMORTALS REVEALS…

  • Unveiled! What Mt. Graham really is, and why NASA and the Vatican are there
  • Disclosed! What the Bible says about gateways and the beings that wait behind them
  • Discovered! Scientific evidence of, and signals from, life beneath the surface of the earth
  • Found! The ancient stargates and their association with vortex manifestations
  • Revealed! The role of CERN s Large Hadron Collider and its search for a portal
  • Uncovered! Gobekli tepe, Baalbek, and the secrets of the coming immortals
  • Deciphered! The worldwide grid that ties them all together
  • Exposed! The occult s countdown calendar for the return of their gods
  • Unearthed! Giants, cryptids, and their mysterious connection with gates

In On the Path of the Immortals, internationally acclaimed, investigative authors Thomas Horn and Cris Putnam continue the greatest investigation of our time by exposing the facts kept hidden from the public by elitists and intellectuals who are planning mankind s assimilation under a coming savior, one whom the prophet Daniel foresaw as an alien god.

House Cleaning!  NOTE!  We are waiting for the books—On the Path of the Immortals—to arrive from Tom Horn’s warehouse and there has been a delay!  Please be patient as we’re doing everything we can to ship them out as soon as we get them!  L. A. 

 Go to www.lamarzulli.net and get the 4-DISC DVD Set for only $24.95

L. A. 2013 PHOTO 23

January 16 17 – Prophecy Conference California – with Chuck Missler Bob Cornuke! Details soon! Church of the Rock – Riverside California! http://www.rockchurchsr.org/CONFERENCE.html
March 12-15: Lion Heart Ministries in Knoxville Tennessee.  http://www.lionheartministries.org/calendar_conf_NephilimAgenda.php
March 15th: LA Marzulli will minister at Lakewind Church’s Sunday morning service (the conference venue – see above link).
March 18th: Calvary Chapel East Albuquerque
March 20: Farmington – Dine’s Baptist Church 3396 Hwy 62 – Waterflow NM
April 16 – 19:  Northeast Prophecy Summit – http://www.northeastprophecysummit.org/
 April 21! UPARS – Studio City – Los Angeles – Studio City at 12355 Moorpark Ave., 91604. http://www.meetup.com/UPARS-Los-Angeles/
April 24-26: Memphis Tennessee – http://www.watchersconference.com
April 28h: Nashville! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/invasion-featuring-guest-authorlecturer-la-marzulli-tickets-15929991032
May 1-3 : Calvary Chapel Kennebec Valley located in Fairfield Maine!  www.cckennebecvalley.org

May 31! Southern California –  Seating is limited.   “For His Name Sake” 21151 S. Western Ave.Torrance, CA 90501 Sun at 11:00 Conference rm #210

 July 11th – CERO – UFO Meeting w/ Richard Shaw.  This is in Los Angeles and we will be discussing our WATCHERS Series! www.cerointernational.com

July 24 – 25 – Church of His Presence – Daphne Alabama – http://churchofhispresence.org/

JUST ADDED!  August 21 -23 – Florida – Details coming soon. www.victoryworship.net

September 12: Nephilm Mounds III – Russ Dizdar, Gary Stearman, Chief Joseph Riverwind – Fritz Zimmerman L. A. Marzulli!   http://www.nephilimmounds3.com

Just Added!: September 19th –36th Annual Midwest Hebrew Prophesy Conference – w/ Chuck Missler! St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church
2742 15th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55407

Just Added!  October 23-26 – Atlanta – W/ Pastor Caspar McCloud! www.freedomslightchurchofgod.org 

Just Added !  November 6 -8: Fairton Christian Center – Southern New Jersey!  fairton.org

L. A. Marzulli shares the platform with a variety of speakers and does not necessarily endorse them unless specifically noted

Article source: https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/what-does-the-pope-supporting-palestinian-statehood-gay-marriage-and-isil-have-in-common/


Video: Time to impeach the IRS Commissioner?

What happens when an administration refuses to hold its officials accountable for deceiving Congress? Eventually Congress starts looking for ways to hold them accountable directly. The Department of Justice has already made clear that it won’t enforce warrants issued by Congress, so Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) wants to use the tools the US Constitution provides. Jordan tells Steve Doocy this morning that he wants to impeach one such official, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, for ongoing deceptions in the probe of political targeting by the tax-exempt review department (via Daniel Halper):

Perhaps this is more of a question of priorities, but why start with Koskinen? The IRS chief has certainly angered people with his special blend of arrogance and incompetence, but he wasn’t at the IRS when the abuses took place. Koskinen got appointed in the wake of some rare head-rolling at IRS after the exposure of the political targeting of conservatives. Removing Koskinen — or at least making him the first example of Congressional power — seems out of place while James Clapper remains the Director of National Intelligence.

Clapper flat-out lied to Congress, and did so repeatedly, when asked about the nature of NSA’s operations. Clapper later even admitted he hadn’t told the whole truth, deliberately keeping critical information about executive-branch abuses from the oversight of the legislative branch. Those lies dealt with a much more bipartisan issue, and primarily angered Democrats ahead of Republicans at first, who certainly got more vocal about it after Edward Snowden began revealing the nature of NSA domestic trawling. Despite this, Barack Obama has not even hinted that he’d replace Clapper despite his obstruction of Congress and the serious damage done to both constitutional oversight and intelligence operations by Clapper’s actions (and inactions for that matter, when it comes to Snowden). That is by far the greater insult, and no one has yet attempted so much as a censure, let alone an impeachment.

Koskinen isn’t exactly small potatoes, but if Congress wants to flex its muscle, let’s start where the most damage has been done — and send a message that will ring louder and longer.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/26/video-time-to-impeach-the-irs-commissioner/


Video: GOP debates whether to force Supreme Court justices, staff to use ObamaCare

Republicans erupted in outrage after yesterday’s Supreme Court’s King v Burwell decision on ObamaCare, but some acknowledged that it let them off the hook for having to fix the ACA that they want to entirely repeal. Still, not all Republicans are grateful for the reprieve — or perhaps some are just so grateful that they want to repay the court in kind. Hence, Congress will shortly consider a bill requiring the Supreme Court and its staff to share in the glorious beneficence of ObamaCare:

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.

“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.

“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.

Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.

All right, so Babin’s not acting out of beneficence. As rebukes go, it’s not as clear-cut as the effort to get the local jurisdiction to seize former Justice David Souter’s house through eminent domain after Kelo, but it could be more entertaining.

It’s clearly an attempt to remind the nine justices that their rulings have consequences, even when Congress has few avenues of response. This might be the only way of delivering a rebuke short of impeachment, and it might make for a few amusing moments along the way. Would Democrats in Congress argue against their own creation? If it passed, would Barack Obama veto it as an abuse of power? The opportunities for hypocrisy and irony are nearly endless, my friends.

However, it probably won’t last long. For one thing, Republicans still plan to repeal the ACA, and will probably not want to get too caught up in sideshows now that they have been freed from having to fix the already-dysfunctional system. Budgets will now occupy most of their time, along with legislative efforts to deal with the fallout from the Obergefell decision, which is much more pressing than directing a legislative slap at the six justices that assumed legislative powers to sustain the system. Arguably, anyway.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/26/video-gop-debates-whether-to-force-supreme-court-justices-staff-to-use-obamacare/


Video: Man who opposed gay marriage three years ago makes oddly passionate case for it after SCOTUS decision

You would think someone who opposed the practice as recently as 2012 would be more ambivalent about today’s Court decision, more circumspect in his language about a practice which, he assured the entire voting public of the United States, conflicted with his deeply religious worldview when he first ran for president in 2008. As it is, this is as fulsome a celebration of gay marriage as you’ll find outside an Anthony Kennedy opinion or an Andrew Sullivan blog post. Here’s the thing about “evolution”: It happens, but it’s supposed to take awhile. With Obama, it was lightning fast. Any theories about why that is? Anyone want to spitball an explanation for why the rhetoric here, variations of which were surely uttered around candidate Obama many, many times by his circle of left-wing intellectual pals, supposedly wasn’t persuasive enough to convince him of the justness of the cause until after he was safely elected president?

I’ve written the “Obama’s a ridiculous fraud” post about his SSM “evolution” many times over the past three years and should retire the genre today, now that the issue’s effectively settled as a matter of law. But for the record, and I say this as a supporter of gay marriage myself, it will never not amaze me just how cynical this tool was in lying about his true position on the subject in 2008. I don’t single him out in saying that, either; half the Republicans in Congress are no doubt just as egregious in concealing their true feelings about gay marriage as O was. But I can’t get over just how free his free pass from the left was given that opposing SSM is treated as a basic moral litmus test by liberals for any other pol. You would think simple humility after his grand deception would lead him to rein it in here a bit, a final nod to the fact that he lied for his own political gain and should at least keep up a small pretense that he used to feel otherwise. But no. In fairness, he’s always been an ends-justifies-the-means kind of guy when it comes to campaign promises: He claimed he’d rein in runaway executive power as president and move away from the more controversial instruments of American foreign policy, like drones, and he’s done the opposite, but he’s gotten results that make liberals happy — amnesty, smoother implementation for ObamaCare, lots of dead terrorists for Democratic campaign operatives to point to. He got elected for the (supposed) power of his words but there may be no modern president whose campaign rhetoric meant less once he was in office. Coming soon: The big nuclear sellout to Iran from a guy who vowed that he’d never let Iran get the bomb. Liberals will applaud that one too. Give the guy this much — he produces for his base, even while he’s lying to their faces.

If you think his salute here to gay marriage is overly fragrant, wait until Hillary finally steps before a camera to address it. She’s got a lot more to atone for on this subject than O does and she knows it. We may see actual tears.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/26/video-man-who-opposed-gay-marriage-three-years-ago-makes-oddly-passionate-case-for-it-after-scotus-decision/


JUNE 22-26 Top 10 Listener Choice Rebroadcasts- NOTE*** RESUMING LIVE BROADCAST MONDAY JUNE 29th

MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS HAVE OCCURRED THAT REQUIRE IMPORTANT CHANGES TO MY BOOK AND SUBSEQUENT STRICT ATTENTION AS I AM UNDER AN EXTREMELY TIGHT DEADLINE. ENJOY MY TOP VIEWERS CHOICE REBROADCASTS.

RESUMING LIVE BROADCAST MONDAY JUNE 29th

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/june-18-top-10-viewers-choice-rebroadcast/


There Must Be A Reason….

end timeCommentary Analysis

by

L. A. Marzulli

There must be a reason why the Republicans will pass Obamatrade but won’t read the bill before doing so.

There must be a reason why Speaker of the House, John Boehner is ramrodding the bill down our throats.

There must be a reason why the national debt is frozen at 18 trillion.

There must be a reason why after every mass shooting event—Jared Loughner, The Batman Shooter, The V-Tech shooter, Adam Lanza and now the Charleston Shooter—the first thing we hear from our government is the need to round up our guns, never mind that all these shooters are high on Big—Pharma drugs.

There must be a reason why we are still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan….

There must be a reason why there is a trillion-dollar opium harvest in Afghanistan.

There must be a reason why we never hear about Fukushima, yet fish and wildlife are dying on our west coast.

There must be a reason why we see record drought, record heat wave, record snow-fall and record flooding.

There must be a reason why we hear everything about Bruce Jenner but nothing about the genocide in Syria.

There must be a reason why the gay agenda is being forced down our throats and we are expected to embrace gay marriage.

There must be a reason why we will most likely get Jeb and Hilary for our 2016 Presidential candidates.

There must be a reason why our Congress can’t balance a budget yet we’re supposed to balance ours and be good stewards of our money.

There must be a reason why were taxed at every turn, every transaction, every purchase, yet all of this money is never enough to fill the belly of the bloated-out-of-control state.

There must be a reason buildings collapse at free-fall speed and yet this defies the laws of physics.

There must be a reason why Hitler burnt the Reichstag.

There must be a reason why the US military is conducting the largest exercise since the Civil War on US soil…. Jade Helm.

There must be a reason why earthquakes are increasing in frequency and intensity.

There must be a reason why almost every news agency leads with the same story: You don’t need us to tell you that gas prices are back on the rise. 

There must be a reason why Rand Paul calls the Patriot Act, unpatriotic.

There must be a reason why sightings of UFOs are increasing and yet most people won’t even talk about it.  Never mind that Paul Hellyer the former Secretary of Defense for the Canadian government declared: UFO’s are as real as the airplanes flying overhead.

There must be a reason for the 60 million aborted babies in the USA and the 1 Billion aborted babies world wide since Roe v. Wade.

There must be a reason Americans don’t believe in the American dream any more.

There must be a reason why the Southern border is still porous and illegals continue to come across into our country, unabated.

There must be a reason why the churches agreed to the 501C3 tax laws.

There must be a reason, that for the most part, prophecy isn’t taught in our churches any more.

There must be a reason why genetic alterations—transhumanism—are changing the very fabric of who we are.

There must be a reason why those at CERN may open up a portal to another dimension and not be able to close it and yet will do it anyway.

There must be a reason why we went into Iraq when there were no WMD’s.

There must be a reason why the bees are dying off.

There must be a reason why we watch the Super Bowl and the half-time shows are an occult spectacle, in our faces.

There must be a reason why more people in the UK believe in ET, than the God of the Bible.

There must be a reason why the powers-that-be insist on a two-state solution for the so-called Palestinians, and yet when Israel gives land for peace, in order to assuage the Palestinians, they get no peace.

There must be a reason why the god of Islam spawned the suicide bomber.

There must be a reason for so many lone gunmen.

There must be a reason why the NSA has to track every phone call.

There must be a reason for Agenda 21.

There must be a reason why most churches have a form of religion but deny its power.

There must be a reason….

…and these are the some of the reasons why Jesus has to return soon….

What was written will come to pass.  What was foretold will unfold.  L. A. Marzulli

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On The Trail of the Immortals

Following the release of their international best-seller, Exo-Vaticana, Thomas Horn and Cris Putnam were inundated with requests from around the world to be interviewed on radio, television, and in print media. What they discovered sent shockwaves through Christianity concerning the Vatican s advanced telescope, which sits on top of Mt. Graham in Arizona (USA) where the Jesuits admit they are monitoring something approaching the earth. After the author s initial report was published in Exo-Vaticana, the pope s top astronomer took to the airwaves and on the Vatican Observatory website to try and explain the role that he and other church astronomers are playing with regards to emerging ET Friendly theology, their association with the LUCIFER device at Mt. Graham, and their developing doctrines concerning extraterrestrial life and the impact it may have on planet Earth s religions; Christianity in particular.

$19.95

Now, armed with fresh information from the native peoples (that failed before a federal appeals court to stop the construction of the Vatican s observatory on one of their four holiest mountains), the authors set out with cameras and field investigators to unearth their most astonishing discovery yet. The mountain is said to be a portal, a gateway to another dimension. And, as the Vatican knows and the authors uncovered, it is not the only one.

NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON THE PATH OF THE IMMORTALS REVEALS…

  • Unveiled! What Mt. Graham really is, and why NASA and the Vatican are there
  • Disclosed! What the Bible says about gateways and the beings that wait behind them
  • Discovered! Scientific evidence of, and signals from, life beneath the surface of the earth
  • Found! The ancient stargates and their association with vortex manifestations
  • Revealed! The role of CERN s Large Hadron Collider and its search for a portal
  • Uncovered! Gobekli tepe, Baalbek, and the secrets of the coming immortals
  • Deciphered! The worldwide grid that ties them all together
  • Exposed! The occult s countdown calendar for the return of their gods
  • Unearthed! Giants, cryptids, and their mysterious connection with gates

In On the Path of the Immortals, internationally acclaimed, investigative authors Thomas Horn and Cris Putnam continue the greatest investigation of our time by exposing the facts kept hidden from the public by elitists and intellectuals who are planning mankind s assimilation under a coming savior, one whom the prophet Daniel foresaw as an alien god.

House Cleaning!  NOTE!  We are waiting for the books—On the Path of the Immortals—to arrive from Tom Horn’s warehouse and there has been a delay!  Please be patient as we’re doing everything we can to ship them out as soon as we get them!  L. A. 

 Go to www.lamarzulli.net and get the 4-DISC DVD Set for only $24.95

L. A. 2013 PHOTO 23

January 16 17 – Prophecy Conference California – with Chuck Missler Bob Cornuke! Details soon! Church of the Rock – Riverside California! http://www.rockchurchsr.org/CONFERENCE.html
March 12-15: Lion Heart Ministries in Knoxville Tennessee.  http://www.lionheartministries.org/calendar_conf_NephilimAgenda.php
March 15th: LA Marzulli will minister at Lakewind Church’s Sunday morning service (the conference venue – see above link).
March 18th: Calvary Chapel East Albuquerque
March 20: Farmington – Dine’s Baptist Church 3396 Hwy 62 – Waterflow NM
April 16 – 19:  Northeast Prophecy Summit – http://www.northeastprophecysummit.org/
 April 21! UPARS – Studio City – Los Angeles – Studio City at 12355 Moorpark Ave., 91604. http://www.meetup.com/UPARS-Los-Angeles/
April 24-26: Memphis Tennessee – http://www.watchersconference.com
April 28h: Nashville! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/invasion-featuring-guest-authorlecturer-la-marzulli-tickets-15929991032
May 1-3 : Calvary Chapel Kennebec Valley located in Fairfield Maine!  www.cckennebecvalley.org

May 31! Southern California –  Seating is limited.   “For His Name Sake” 21151 S. Western Ave.Torrance, CA 90501 Sun at 11:00 Conference rm #210

 July 11th – CERO – UFO Meeting w/ Richard Shaw.  This is in Los Angeles and we will be discussing our WATCHERS Series! www.cerointernational.com

July 24 – 25 – Church of His Presence – Daphne Alabama – http://churchofhispresence.org/

JUST ADDED!  August 21 -23 – Florida – Details coming soon. www.victoryworship.net

September 12: Nephilm Mounds III – Russ Dizdar, Gary Stearman, Chief Joseph Riverwind – Fritz Zimmerman L. A. Marzulli!   http://www.nephilimmounds3.com

Just Added!: September 19th –36th Annual Midwest Hebrew Prophesy Conference – w/ Chuck Missler! St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church
2742 15th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55407

Just Added!  October 23-26 – Atlanta – W/ Pastor Caspar McCloud! www.freedomslightchurchofgod.org 

Just Added !  November 6 -8: Fairton Christian Center – Southern New Jersey!  fairton.org

L. A. Marzulli shares the platform with a variety of speakers and does not necessarily endorse them unless specifically noted

Article source: https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/there-must-be-a-reason/


Video: Obama announces end of prosecutions for families who pay ransom to terrorists

“No family of an American hostage has ever been prosecuted” for attempting to pay a ransom to win them back, Barack Obama declared near the end of his address on changes in hostage policy. Obama had earlier announced that a new executive order would make clear that families in that position shall no longer be threatened by such prosecution, but defended the existing policy of refusing to offer “concessions” to hostage takers:

CNN lays out the changes announced by Obama in this speech:

–A Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell will coordinate all of the U.S. government’s response. Located at the FBI, it will be directed by a senior FBI official, but will have representatives from other key US agencies such as the State Department and the Pentagon. This will be a 24/7 operation and is modeled on Joint Terrorism Task Forces where officials from many agencies come together to work on a common set of problems.

–A “family engagement coordinator” will be the single point of contact for the families of hostages.

–A senior U.S. diplomat will be appointed to be the presidential envoy for hostage affairs at the State Department and will be responsible for the diplomatic component of any hostage negotiation.

–An intelligence official will be appointed who will be able to declassify information about the hostages so that it can be given to the hostage’s family. A big problem in the past has been the fact that the families were not “cleared” to receive the intelligence, often classified, about what was happening to their family members who had been taken hostage.

–Hostage families had in the past been threatened with prosecution if they paid ransom to terrorist organizations. They will no longer need to fear this outcome, as the U.S. government will not prosecute them if they communicate directly with the hostage takers and offer ransom payments.

–As per longstanding policy, the U.S. government won’t pay any ransom itself, nor will it alter its “no concessions” policy.

On this point, CNN’s Peter Bergen decided to insert a parenthetical editorial comment about the policy:

(This is predicated on the seemingly reasonable view that the U.S. government should not pay ransoms, as they will encourage hostages-taking. In fact, there is no empirical evidence for the claim that the United States’ policy of not paying for the release of its hostages–unlike certain Europe governments–makes Americans any safer in hostile areas overseas.)

There has actually been considerable evidence that the willingness of other Western nations to pay ransoms has escalated the market for kidnappings and especially ransom demands. The UK’s Guardian reported on this effect almost a year ago:

Those ransoms – frequently delivered in the form of cash-filled suitcases handed over in the desert – have had unintended but inevitable consequences. More nationals from those countries have been targeted for kidnap as they represent a guaranteed return, while the intervention of major European states willing to pay millions of euros has inflated the price for other captives, putting the cost beyond the reach of families or employers trying to negotiate privately.

“When states pay vast ransoms, it skews the market, and it’s simply not possible for families to pay that amount,” said David Rohde, a Reuters journalist who was kidnapped in Afghanistan by the Taliban and held for seven months. “The Foleys faced that harsh reality over and over again in this case.”

Government participation in this market makes it almost moot whether the US adopts a laissez-faire approach with the families of hostages. Unless those families are tech billionaires, it will be almost impossible to meet terrorist ransom demands anyway, thanks to the distortion those government interventions create. Furthermore, paying ransoms do two other things that make people less safe. They provide terrorists with propaganda for recruitment, and the ransoms go directly to funding other terrorist acts, including those against Americans in “hostile areas overseas.”

On top of that, the US is bound by treaty with the G-8 to refuse concessions. That may be routinely broken by other G-8 nations, but it is still a treaty in force here in the US (and the UK, which follows the same policy). That treaty doesn’t bar private individuals from negotiating ransoms for hostages — that’s covered by statutory law which Obama now says the Department of Justice will continue not to enforce — but it does bind official action by the US government.

Not everyone’s happy with the new approach to hostaging. NBC reports that several lawmakers on Capitol Hill are already blasting Obama’s approach:

“The brutal murders of innocent Americans held hostage by the Islamic State are tragic and sober reminders that the terrorist threat against the United States and its allies is real and ongoing,” Goodlatte, R-Virginia said in a statement. “Unfortunately, President Obama’s decision to change our nation’s longstanding policy against paying ransom demands to terrorists does more harm than good. In fact, it empowers, emboldens, and incentivizes these violent extremists to capture and hold more Americans hostage for ransom. I urge President Obama to reconsider the implications of this policy shift and ensure that our hostage policies will actually serve to protect American lives.”

There are certainly risks with this shift in approach, foreign policy experts said.

“The U.S. has for decades had a policy of not formally negotiating with terror groups or paying ransoms out of a fear that would just encourage them to grab more American hostages. That’s a real risk for this new policy as well,” Dreazen said. “The calculus the White House is probably making is that groups like the Islamic State are already super-motivated to nag Americans, so trying to make it easier to get them back outweighs the slim chance the group would somehow become even more anxious to grab more.”

Lawmakers such as Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-California, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, who has been a vocal advocate for rescuing American hostages held by terrorist groups are also frustrated that the changes don’t go further.

“After a long, drawn-out review of U.S. hostage policy, the changes offered up by the White House prove that neither the right questions were asked nor were any lessons learned,” Hunter said in a statement. “Wholesale changes are needed, but what’s being put forward is nothing more than window dressing, I fear. It’s a pathetic response to a serious problem that has plagued the ability of the U.S. to successfully recover Americans held captive in the post-9/11 era.”

What’s the real impact of these changes, though? Not much, on first blush, except for families of hostages who had to deal with empty bluster about prosecution in their desperation. The escalating demands of hostage-takers make it almost certain that there will be no way a ransom would succeed anyway, and the rest of this is reshuffling deck chairs around the rest of the near-futility of US defense against hostage-takers. Absent success in rescue-and-extraction missions, the US can’t have much impact on this unless we’re willing to take the field militarily and deny terrorists any ground to hold.

If these changes make the agony of the families any more tolerable, great. Just don’t expect that these changes will make Americans safer, either abroad or at home, except from overzealous bureaucrats.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/24/video-obama-announces-end-of-prosecutions-for-families-who-pay-ransom-to-terrorists/


Here it comes: Manchin and Toomey looking at another run at background checks

Don’t worry, guys. It’s just a flag, right? If you give in on that one it’s not like the Liberals would go all opportunistic, vulture culture and try to take a mile after you give them an inch, would they?

Item 1 of 2: You may have noticed that Walmart was going to jump on the bandwagon and dump their Confederate flag merchandise. But did you happen to catch the comments from Walmart’s CEO when the media pressed them on guns?

“Our focus as it relates to firearms should be hunters and people who shoot at sporting clubs,” [Walmart CEO Doug McMillon] told CNN. “We believe in serving those customers. We have for a long time.”

Walmart says it doesn’t sell handguns in the continental U.S., nor does it sell magazines that hold a large number of bullets. It also says it sells firearms primarily in areas where there are large concentrations of hunters and sportsmen, and that it doesn’t sell firearms online.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, though hunters and outdoor sports enthusiasts have certainly benefited from the protection. The Founders would probably break out laughing if you suggested such a question since it was just assumed that most people needed to hunt to help feed their families back then. But Walmart is feeling the pressure and if it was that easy to take out the Confederate flags it was probably just as easy to try to disassociate themselves with any potentially unpleasant Second Amendment issues right after the latest mass shooting.

At least nobody on the Hill would be so crass as to try to capitalize on this, though, right?

Item 2: There’s no time like the aftermath of a tragedy to try to ram through some good old fashioned gun control legislation, eh?

In the wake of the Charleston shooting, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) are considering ways to renew their failed push to expand meaningful background checks on gun purchases.

In separate interviews Tuesday night, at a reception before a ceremony hosted by Sandy Hook families where Toomey was honored, the senators discussed their desire to find a new way forward.

“We want to make sure we have the votes. Pat’s going to have to, and I’ll work with him, to get some of our colleagues on the Republican side,” Manchin said, adding that he hasn’t talked directly to Toomey about a revival.

Manchin specifically mentioned an effort aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people diagnosed with mental illness.

Of course they did. This didn’t work after Sandy Hook, but if they run it up the flagpole enough times… well, they only have to get lucky once. And when they see Republicans folding right and left on the easier target of the Confederate Battle Flag, it’s got to inspire some hope that they’ve got a wave going and some of the same ones will start feeling the election season heat and give this a fresh look. You have to give them credit where due… it’s not a stupid strategy at all and they really have nothing to lose by trying.

In some ways you can almost forgive Toomey. Manchin seems to be nearly fireproof, but the Pennsylvania senator is up for election next year in a state which consistently leans just blue enough in presidential election years to be problematic. He’s no doubt aware of that and it might be fueling some of his “enthusiasm” for another run at the background check laws. Unfortunately I don’t know if the Pennsylvania GOP has anyone on the bench who would be more solid on the issue and still be electable in a year when they’ll probably be facing Hillary coattails.

That’s enough depressing items for one day. Just keep your eyes on the news for more dominoes to fall. In the American Game of Thrones, you never let a mass killing go to waste.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/24/here-it-comes-manchin-and-toomey-looking-at-another-run-at-background-checks/


Video: Famed Rolling Stone cover boy apologizes to Boston victims, gets death penalty

When news first broke that Dzokhar Tsarnaev would speak to the court in his sentencing hearing today, some wondered if the convicted terrorist behind the Boston Marathon bombing had finally decided to use the trial as a platform for jihadi propaganda. Instead, Tsarnaev used the opportunity to apologize to his victims, some of whom had delivered powerful impact statements just a few minutes earlier. “I am sorry for the lives I have taken,” Tsarnaev said, adding that “if there is any lingering doubt, I did it along with my brother.”

Judge George O’Toole sentenced Tsarnaev to death shortly afterward:

A US District Court jury had already sentenced Tsarnaev to death. US District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. formalized that sentence at the end of the hearing.

“I sentence you to the penalty of death by execution,” O’Toole said.

The judge told Tsarnaev he would be remembered as a symbol of evil.

“No one will remember that your teachers were fond of you, that you were funny, a good athlete,’’ he said. “Whenever your name is mentioned, what will be remembered is the evil you have done.’’

“What will be remembered is that you murdered and maimed. … It was a monstrous self-deception. You had to forget your own humanity. The common humanity you shared with your brother Martin.’’ Martin Richard, 8, was the youngest of the three people killed in the bombing, at the finish line that day for a family outing.

The victims got their day in court, speaking directly to Tsarnaev. WCVB in Boston reports on their impact statements today, with one of the most powerful coming from the parents of the youngest murder victim. “We choose peace,” said the parents of Martin Richard. “That is what makes us different from him.”

The sister of slain police officer Sean Collier provided the most cutting remark, and probably the most accurate assessment of Tsarnaev’s evil. “He ran his own brother over with a car,” Jennifer Rodgers told the court. “No wonder he had no problem killing mine.”

The event did not go without incident. Police arrested a man at the courthouse after he parked at the courthouse, evading police roadblocks, and a search of his vehicle apparently produced a meat cleaver. The video shows the police also checking out the vehicle for any other suspicious material:

A security team surrounded the vehicle after the man allegedly went through a security barricade and parked in a restricted area outside the Moakley Courthouse shortly before 1 p.m.

The man was taken away from the area in handcuffs, and a bomb-sniffing dog was brought to check the vehicle.

CNN’s Wolf Blizter interviewed Nicolaus Czarnecki, a photographer who tells Blitzer that the man acted strange from the moment he parked — but apparently cooperated with police and showed them the knife:

Don’t expect the execution to take place soon. The US has sentenced nearly 100 people to death since Congress authorized the death penalty for certain crimes in the late 1980s, but have executed only three. Tsarnaev’s surprising allocution at sentencing will moot any possible claims of innocence on appeal, but there will be enough claims to keep appellate attorneys busy for a very long time. Ironically, Tsarnaev’s youth makes it at least somewhat more likely that he’ll face an actual execution than other death-penalty defendants as he’s much more likely to survive all of the appeals options that will unfold. We’ll be hearing about Tsarnaev for a long, long time.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/24/video-famed-rolling-stone-cover-boy-apologizes-to-boston-victims-gets-death-penalty/


JUNE 22-25 Top 10 Viewers Choice Rebroadcasts

MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS HAVE OCCURRED THAT REQUIRE IMPORTANT CHANGES TO MY BOOK AND SUBSEQUENT STRICT ATTENTION AS I AM UNDER AN EXTREMELY TIGHT DEADLINE.

ENJOY MY TOP VIEWERS CHOICE REBROADCASTS.  I HOPE TO RECONVENE NEXT MONDAY JUNE 29th.

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/june-18-top-10-viewers-choice-rebroadcast/


Acceleration TV – Charlie Charlie Challenge!

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

On The Trail of the Immortals

Following the release of their international best-seller, Exo-Vaticana, Thomas Horn and Cris Putnam were inundated with requests from around the world to be interviewed on radio, television, and in print media. What they discovered sent shockwaves through Christianity concerning the Vatican s advanced telescope, which sits on top of Mt. Graham in Arizona (USA) where the Jesuits admit they are monitoring something approaching the earth. After the author s initial report was published in Exo-Vaticana, the pope s top astronomer took to the airwaves and on the Vatican Observatory website to try and explain the role that he and other church astronomers are playing with regards to emerging ET Friendly theology, their association with the LUCIFER device at Mt. Graham, and their developing doctrines concerning extraterrestrial life and the impact it may have on planet Earth s religions; Christianity in particular.

$19.95

Now, armed with fresh information from the native peoples (that failed before a federal appeals court to stop the construction of the Vatican s observatory on one of their four holiest mountains), the authors set out with cameras and field investigators to unearth their most astonishing discovery yet. The mountain is said to be a portal, a gateway to another dimension. And, as the Vatican knows and the authors uncovered, it is not the only one.

NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON THE PATH OF THE IMMORTALS REVEALS…

  • Unveiled! What Mt. Graham really is, and why NASA and the Vatican are there
  • Disclosed! What the Bible says about gateways and the beings that wait behind them
  • Discovered! Scientific evidence of, and signals from, life beneath the surface of the earth
  • Found! The ancient stargates and their association with vortex manifestations
  • Revealed! The role of CERN s Large Hadron Collider and its search for a portal
  • Uncovered! Gobekli tepe, Baalbek, and the secrets of the coming immortals
  • Deciphered! The worldwide grid that ties them all together
  • Exposed! The occult s countdown calendar for the return of their gods
  • Unearthed! Giants, cryptids, and their mysterious connection with gates

In On the Path of the Immortals, internationally acclaimed, investigative authors Thomas Horn and Cris Putnam continue the greatest investigation of our time by exposing the facts kept hidden from the public by elitists and intellectuals who are planning mankind s assimilation under a coming savior, one whom the prophet Daniel foresaw as an alien god.

House Cleaning!  NOTE!  We are waiting for the books—On the Path of the Immortals—to arrive from Tom Horn’s warehouse and there has been a delay!  Please be patient as we’re doing everything we can to ship them out as soon as we get them!  L. A. 

 Go to www.lamarzulli.net and get the 4-DISC DVD Set for only $24.95

L. A. 2013 PHOTO 23

January 16 17 – Prophecy Conference California – with Chuck Missler Bob Cornuke! Details soon! Church of the Rock – Riverside California! http://www.rockchurchsr.org/CONFERENCE.html
March 12-15: Lion Heart Ministries in Knoxville Tennessee.  http://www.lionheartministries.org/calendar_conf_NephilimAgenda.php
March 15th: LA Marzulli will minister at Lakewind Church’s Sunday morning service (the conference venue – see above link).
March 18th: Calvary Chapel East Albuquerque
March 20: Farmington – Dine’s Baptist Church 3396 Hwy 62 – Waterflow NM
April 16 – 19:  Northeast Prophecy Summit – http://www.northeastprophecysummit.org/
 April 21! UPARS – Studio City – Los Angeles – Studio City at 12355 Moorpark Ave., 91604. http://www.meetup.com/UPARS-Los-Angeles/
April 24-26: Memphis Tennessee – http://www.watchersconference.com
April 28h: Nashville! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/invasion-featuring-guest-authorlecturer-la-marzulli-tickets-15929991032
May 1-3 : Calvary Chapel Kennebec Valley located in Fairfield Maine!  www.cckennebecvalley.org

May 31! Southern California –  Seating is limited.   “For His Name Sake” 21151 S. Western Ave.Torrance, CA 90501 Sun at 11:00 Conference rm #210

 July 11th – CERO – UFO Meeting w/ Richard Shaw.  This is in Los Angeles and we will be discussing our WATCHERS Series! www.cerointernational.com

July 24 – 25 – Church of His Presence – Daphne Alabama – http://churchofhispresence.org/

JUST ADDED!  August 21 -23 – Florida – Details coming soon. www.victoryworship.net

September 12: Nephilm Mounds III – Russ Dizdar, Gary Stearman, Chief Joseph Riverwind – Fritz Zimmerman L. A. Marzulli!   http://www.nephilimmounds3.com

Just Added!: September 19th –36th Annual Midwest Hebrew Prophesy Conference – w/ Chuck Missler! St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church
2742 15th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55407

Just Added!  October 23-26 – Atlanta – W/ Pastor Caspar McCloud! www.freedomslightchurchofgod.org 

Just Added !  November 6 -8: Fairton Christian Center – Southern New Jersey!  fairton.org

L. A. Marzulli shares the platform with a variety of speakers and does not necessarily endorse them unless specifically noted

Article source: https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/acceleration-tv-charlie-charlie-challenge/


Reason: How the DoJ gagged us from reporting on subpoena targeting commenters

Two weeks ago, Ken White at Popehat reported that the Department of Justice had subpoenaed the records of Reason Magazine to identify anonymous commenters on its website.  Nick Gillespie had criticized the DoJ for its prosecution of the Silk Road case, and a few of its commenters had responded with the usual hyperbole. White found out about the subpoena, but Reason remained so quiet that it became a matter of open speculation as to whether the court had slapped a gag order on the libertarian magazine. Today, Gillespie confirms the gag order, which has since been vacated, and explains the circumstances in which the government of the United States prevented a publication from discussing the abuse of power directed at it:

At about 10:30 am ET on Thursday, June 4, our attorney Gayle Sproul (of Levine, Sullivan, Koch, Schulz) called Velamoor to discuss the subpoena. The call did not go well. Sproul asked Velamoor to consider scaling back the scope of the subpoena by omitting the more benign commenters. Velamoor said simply, “No.” Then Sproul informed him that we would be notifying our commenters about the subpoena to give them the chance to defend their rights to remain anonymous, and that we would not comply with the subpoena as it related to any commenters who moved to quash the subpoena before our compliance deadline. Sproul explained to him that there is case law firmly establishing that these commenters have the right to speak anonymously, and that we would withhold the information of anyone fighting the subpoena. Velamoor disputed that any such free speech rights exist. He asked that we delay notifying the commenters so he could get a court order prohibiting us from disclosing the subpoena to them. We refused. Sproul pointed out that we were perfectly within our rights to share the subpoena given the law and the wording of his own letter. Velamoor then suggested that Reason was “coming close” to interfering with the grand jury investigation. The call ended abruptly. …

Later that day, at approximately 5:35 pm ET, Velamoor sent Reason a gag order he had later secured blocking us from discussing the subpoena or the order itself with anyone outside of Reason, other than our attorney. …

Having already suggested that Reason might have interfered with a grand jury investigation, Velamoor contacted Sproul on the afternoon of Friday, June 5, in response to a letter from her explaining the commenters’ constitutional rights and laying out the timeline of Reason’s notification to them. Velamoor told her that he now had “preliminary information” suggesting that Reason was in violation of the court order. Sproul said we were not and asked for further information. Velamoor refused to give any specifics, saying simply that he was “looking into it further.”

So as of this point in the saga, Reason had been subpoenaed, we had been vaguely—and falsely—accused by a United States Attorney’s office of actions verging on obstruction of justice and contempt of court, and we were now told that we were being investigated further.

Be sure to read it all. White is outraged over the intimidation from the DoJ, especially given the specious claim that any of these comments represented a “true threat” in a legal sense. He calls it “the everyday arrogance of unchecked power”:

First, the subpoena. Some have argued that the Department of Justice must have had information spurring them to use the grand jury to pierce the anonymity of people engaged in protected political speech. Not so. As Reason’s report shows, Assistant U.S. Attorney Niketh Velamoor never articulated any specific basis to fear the bluster of these commenters — any more than he did when I spoke to him.

Saturday I interviewed Mike Alissi, publisher of Reason, who confirmed that Velamoor never suggested that he had any basis to view these as true threats. In fact, he seemed uninterested in the distinction between protected speech and true threats, and refused to narrow the subpoena to carve out the patently non-threatening “special place in hell” commenter. There is no secret ticking time bomb, no wizard with a woodchipper, no classified justification.

This was the Department of Justice targeting speech because it could.

White also accuses the DoJ of attempting to poison the relationship between Reason and its attorney, Gayle Sproul:

Gillespie and Welch also describe how AUSA Velamoor conveyed the gag order. Reason’s attorney, Gayle Sproul, called Velamoor, told him that she represented Reason, and tried fruitlessly to reason with him. Velamoor blustered, then sought and obtained a gag order. But he didn’t send it to Reason’s attorney, with whom he had spoken only hours before. Instead, he sent it directly to Alissi, Reason’s publisher:

Mr. Alissi,

Regarding this subpoena, I spoke to someone who said she was an attorney representing Reason in connection with this subpoena. The attorney indicated that Reason intended to notify the individuals referenced therein about the subpoena. The attorney further refused to provide me any time to take steps to protect the confidentiality of the investigation.

I have obtained the attached Court Order prohibiting Reason from notifying any third party about the subpoena.

Please forward the Order to the attorney and any other individuals who should be aware of it.

Niketh Velamoor had three purposes in sending that message directly to Alissi: to vent the petulance of momentarily thwarted power, to intimidate Reason by threatening it directly, and to undermine the relationship between Reason and its attorney. …

If I did that, I’d be disciplined. If Gayle Sproul did it, she’d be disciplined. That’s because nearly every jurisdiction prohibits, and recognizes as unethical, directly contacting a client who is represented by counsel on the subject of your communication. That prevents lawyers from tricking the clients of other lawyers into ignoring their counsel to their detriment.

If all this seems like a lot of effort over a handful of comments containing idiotic bluster, you’re right. White points out that the judge who approved this gag order happens to work in the same courthouse as the judge Gillespie criticized for his handling of the Silk Road case, which makes all of this seem more than a little incestuous. It also looks very much like the government conspiring to shut down dissent, and to run roughshod over Reason’s Fourth Amendment rights as well as its First Amendment Rights.

Gillespie sums up the threat well:

As libertarians who believe in “Free Minds and Free Markets,” Reason takes seriously an obligation to our audience and to our critics not simply to hold on to what we’ve got but to increase the rights of everyone to speak openly and without figurative or literal prior restraint.

To live in a world where every stray, overheated Internet comment—however trollish and stupid it may be—can be interpreted as an actionable threat to be investigated by a federal grand jury is to live in a world where the government is telling the public and media to just shut up already. As we gather and publish more information on just how often this sort of thing happens, we pledge to always be on the side of more speech rather than less.

Glenn Reynolds calls this “a brushback pitch,” but one from a 500-mph fastball:

When the government orders people not to talk about what it’s doing, it’s hard to keep track of what it’s doing. That’s what the First Amendment is intended to prevent. It’s ironic that the Obama administration — whose supporters in 2008 made much of threats to civil liberties from George W. Bush’s national security apparatus — has so thoroughly embraced surveillance and gag orders.

But if it won’t support a prosecution, why gather this information? Bharara’s office isn’t talking, but I suspect that the purpose of this exercise is to chill speech: To send a signal that whether or not the First Amendment protects your right to talk smack about a federal judge, you’d be wise not to do so if you don’t want to attract the attention of the feds, who might choose to share your information with employers or the news media. Consider it a sort of prosecutorial brush-back pitch, if you like.

Of course, the First Amendment term for “brush-back pitch” is “chilling effect.” The goal, presumably, is to discourage speech protected under the First Amendment, but disliked by authorities. That’s an odd thing from a prosecutor who is sworn to uphold the Constitution — but, these days, perhaps not as odd as all that. Add this case to the mounting pile of evidence that out-of-control prosecutors need to be reined in. Starting, perhaps, with the Southern District of New York.

Had there been a serious “true threat,” then perhaps this approach might have some merit. In this case, though, there was nothing that came close to meeting that standard. As I wrote earlier this month, free speech and liberty in general depends on the rule of law, not the rule of whim. The Department of Justice needs a housecleaning to put it back onto the former.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/22/reason-how-the-doj-gagged-us-from-reporting-on-subpoena-targeting-commenters/


Report: Nikki Haley to call for Confederate flag’s removal as SC legislature mulls action; Update: Lindsey Graham too

No official word yet on what she plans to say but it isn’t hard to guess.

Gov. Nikki Haley will hold a news conference in Columbia at 4 p.m. today at which, sources said, she will call for the Confederate flag to come down from the Statehouse grounds.

The move comes as lawmakers are exploring if the removal can be done legislatively in the coming days, tying their heightened attention to the recent shooting deaths of nine members of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston…

Lawmakers have an unfinished budget, but are considering using the current extended session to address wording that would remove the flag from the Confederate monument as part of the 2015-16 state spending plan.

As recently as eight months ago, at a gubernatorial debate, Haley answered her Democratic opponent’s call to take down the flag by countering that none of the CEOs who’ve brought their businesses to the state seemed to have any issue with it. That may be about to be change, though — protests to burn the flag on Saturday are already picking up steam on Facebook — so evidently Haley’s position will change with it. Last year 61 percent of South Carolinians supported keeping the flag in place on the state house grounds, but Haley’s term-limited as governor and is probably thinking more of her national potential at this point. She’s on the 2016 VP short list already; today’s announcement will remove a potential obstacle. It’s also a huge favor not just to Republicans in the state legislature, who’ll be grateful to have her acting as lightning rod on this, but to the GOP’s presidential field, which wants to make the Confederate flag issue go away ASAP. There’s a lot more upside than downside for her in taking this position.

As for the legislature, they’re in session right now working on a budget. They could either add a provision to the final budget bill removing the flag from the capitol grounds or expand the scope of the session to address the flag separately. The Daily Beast reported a few hours ago that the legislature would indeed take up the flag issue tomorrow, but I can’t find that corroborated anywhere. It’s more a case, I think, of some state senators calling for that to happen rather than having reached any deals yet. On the other hand, there does seem to be some bipartisan support for this: Republican state Rep. Norman Brannon, a friend of murdered Emanuel AME Pastor Clementa Pinckney, plans to introduce a bill to have the flag removed. He told the NYT:

“The flag is kind of like algae in a lake,” he said in an interview. “It’s just barely under the surface, everybody knows it’s there, but unless something like this happens, nobody talks about it.”

Mr. Brannon spoke bluntly about the effect of the killings on him.

“What lit the fire under this was the tragic death of my friend and his eight parishioners,” Mr. Brannon said. “It took my buddy’s death to get me to do this. I should feel ashamed of myself.”

A Democratic state rep says there’s a “growing consensus” among legislators from both parties in both chambers to address the issue before the next legislative session, which presumably means having it formally removed, but whether that’s the truth or wishful thinking is unclear. Then again, how likely is it that Haley would step into the spotlight on this without assurances from Republican leaders in the legislature that they’ll back her up? She may be term-limited but she needs to govern for three more years. She’s not going to make this move before finding out whether doing so will make the rest of her agenda toxic. Speaking of which, Tim Scott was asked yesterday on “Face the Nation” what his position is and promised to make his voice heard if and when the debate begins — but not before then. Your move, Haley. She’ll be okay politically unless Erick Erickson is right that the anti-flag push is perceived by South Carolinians as coming mainly from outside, by northern liberals, rather than a choice made by the state itself. If there really is a “growing consensus” in the legislature about this, that problem should be solved.

I think she’ll say something like this: “No one believes that pride in the Confederate flag necessarily means racist intent, just as no one believes these horrible murders wouldn’t have happened had the flag been removed from the state house grounds years ago. But causation isn’t the issue. What’s at issue is that South Carolinians have come together in a spirit of unity after an act of evil intended to divide us. The flag is another point of division; in the spirit of continuing unity, we should retire it from public grounds and let its display be a matter of private choice.” Good enough?

Update: Sounds like the writing’s on the wall. Graham was equivocal about removing the flag last week, but now he’s reportedly onboard:

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham will call Monday for the removal of the confederate flag from state grounds, a source familiar with the decision told CNN.

Graham, a 2016 presidential candidate, will make his announcement during a press conference with South Carolina’s Republican governor, Nikki Haley, at 4 p.m. Monday.

Strength in numbers: If Haley and Graham are out there together to take the heat, there’s less heat for each to bear separately. I’d be shocked if Tim Scott doesn’t chime in on their side soon.

Tags: black, brannon, charleston, confederate, democrat, emanuel ame, murder, Nikki Haley, racism, republican, South Carolina, white

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/22/report-nikki-haley-to-call-for-confederate-flags-removal-as-sc-legislature-mulls-action/


Shockingly, Americans still not wild about electing a socialist

Gallup has to dig into every nook and cranny of the electorate when it comes to the presidential election, so when things get slow they have time to get into some absolutely hypothetical demographic questions. That was the case this week with what seems to be a fairly simple and innocuous question.

Gallup2

The “fill in the blank” on the question above offered a rather dizzying array of choices. And on pretty much all of them, at least half of Americans responding were willing to give somebody a look if they wanted to run for president. You could be a Catholic, a Jew, a Mormon, Muslim or even an atheist. The color of your skin or your gender (assuming we didn’t wrongly accuse you of being the wrong gender, that is…) didn’t matter. All were welcome. Well… at least all but one.

Gallup1

The only group with a majority saying they could never consider them were socialists. (And for the record, evangelicals were on the list and got a thumbs up.) That’s got to be fairly disheartening to Bernie Sanders. More than half the country has ruled him out before he even started. But how many people really have a grip on the whole socialism thing? Sure… it’s easy to pick on Bernie because he’s at least honest enough to list himself as a socialist on his registration forms and on his website. And at least in Vermont, that’s not a disqualifier. But other Americans seem to have a bit longer memory.

Depending upon which flavor of socialism you’re discussing, most folks with a longer sense of history associate the original socialist movements with the French Revolution and the writings of Karl Marx. (Though on the latter you’re already veering off into the ongoing debates about where socialism and communism intersect and diverge. Yes, you probably have your own opinions, but the origins remain a bit murky.) It was, and to a significant extent remains, a firmly anti-capitalist, share the wealth agenda. And if you’re into the whole free love thing, that might sound great, but it carries with it the implied message that the government knows better than the individual. (Or the states and municipalities as applied to modern America.) Turning everything over to Big Brother and letting him redistribute it is a more reliable system than letting selfish humans achieve what they are able to by dint of their own skills and effort.

Now that I phrase it like that I guess it’s really not that far afield from contemporary liberal theory and the tenets of the Democrat Party. But then again, why was I surprised? The poll didn’t show that a socialist president would be unpopular… just the least popular. And what percentage were in favor of it? Go back to the top and look.

It was 47%. Damn you, Mitt, you glorious bastard.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/22/shockingly-americans-still-not-wild-about-electing-a-socialist/


Romney to South Carolina: Take down the Confederate flag; Update: GOP state legislator to introduce bill to remove it

Welcome to the quadrennial presidential debate over a battle flag whose side lost 150 years ago. Mitt Romney didn’t actually kick this off — we’ll get to that in a minute — and he’s not running for President anyway. This still will force other Republicans into choosing sides on one of the most mystifying practices in the country:

The presidential-level debate actually started yesterday, courtesy of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. He told CNN that he’d be fine if the state revisited the issue of flying the flag at its capitol, but that the flag is “part of who we are”:

When Graham was asked his thoughts regarding the Confederate flag, he said, “It works here, that’s what the statehouse agreed to do. You could probably visit other places in the country near some symbol that doesn’t quite strike you right.” …

“We’re not going to give this a guy an excuse about a book he might have read or a movie he watched or a song he listened to or a symbol out anywhere. It’s him … not the flag,” the Republican senator told CNN’s “New Day” Alisyn Camerota.

No one is calling for a ban on displaying the flag for anyone, but many are opposing the decision by South Carolina to make it an official display of the state government. The state didn’t lower the flag to half-staff after the shooting either, even though it did lower the American flag to half-staff in an official display of mourning for the victims of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. As Graham notes, the flag is part of a series of monuments that include tributes to American war dead and African-Americans, but that stands in contrast to the contributions of those honored in the other displays.

As Chuck Todd and I discussed on the Hugh Hewitt show last night, this has come up in every presidential cycle since at least 2000. That’s due in large part to South Carolina’s status as an early primary state, and its impact is entirely on the Republican field. It puts GOP candidates in a theoretically tough position of either pandering to fans of the flag or writing off South Carolina in the primaries. It puts Republicans at a stark disadvantage, all over a flag which stood for rebellion and disunity, whose purpose ended 150 years ago — and the attachment to it should have ended at the same time.

If South Carolina wants to keep flying this flag at its capitol, that’s their decision. But if that’s their decision, then Republicans should push South Carolina to the end of the primary season and end this quadrennial embarrassment for Republicans in most other parts of the country. Enough is enough.

Update: In 2008, both Romney and John McCain called for South Carolina to remove it, while Mike Huckabee defended it:

The Confederate battle flag — an issue that has confounded politicians in South Carolina for more than a decade — is back again, this time in the form of radio ads attacking Republican presidential candidates Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney for criticizing the flag.

Paid for by Americans for the Preservation of American Culture, the ads also single out rival Republican Mike Huckabee for praise, saying the former Arkansas governor defended the flag as a state and heritage issue. They began running yesterday.

“Mitt Romney’s been trying, but when it comes to bashing the Confederate flag, he can’t hold a candle to John McCain. McCain’s been doing it — calling the flag a racist symbol — for years,” one of the minutelong ads says.

Another ad goes straight for Mr. Romney, with the announcer saying, “Romney let fly in a CNN debate, saying ‘that flag shouldn’t be flown’ and ‘that’s not a flag I recognize.’ ”

Romney’s been consistent on this point. Perhaps more Republicans need to speak on this. The media certainly won’t let them off the hook.

Update: The South Carolina legislature will soon consider a bill to remove the flag — authored by a Republican legislator:

Update: Once again, this has nothing to do with a ban, or with silencing the voices of people who like the Confederate flag. Having the flag fly at the state capitol is an endorsement, a form of government speech and a matter of public policy. The state of South Carolina is endorsing the flag of the Confederacy with its decision to fly it on the grounds of state government. That policy is as open for debate and criticism as any other government policy, and has nothing to do with whether others can use the flag for their own purposes. If South Carolina chooses to keep endorsing it, then the rest of us can choose to criticize it, and to take steps that ensure that the political costs of those policies don’t get applied to those outside of South Carolina.

Update: Not sure why I thought it was 160 years ago, but that’s obviously wrong. The civil war ended 150 years ago. I’ve changed it above. Thanks to Voss749 on Twitter for the correction.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/20/romney-to-south-carolina-take-down-the-confederate-flag/


Losing the gay marriage case before SCOTUS could be the best thing to happen to conservatives in ages

The clock is ticking down toward the eventual Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which will supposedly “settle” the gay marriage question once and for all. Most of the observers I’ve seen making predictions seem to feel that they will codify marriage as a right which crosses all boundaries except in cases of children and close familial ties, and some seem to feel that opponents of gay marriage won’t even get all four conservative justices on their side. My own views on the general topic are well known and there’s no need to go into the whole thing again. (Suffice to say that I don’t think it’s within the government’s power to demand a license or a fee for two consenting adults to marry.)

More interesting to me at this point is the political fallout which will come from this decision no matter which way it goes. Needless to say, it’s going to set off some fireworks. Greg Stohr at Bloomberg has issued the dire warning of the “turmoil” which would ensue if the Supremes allow states to decide for themselves. It will be chaos, I tell ya!

A victory at the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage would be a historic moment for gay rights. Defeat would bring legal pandemonium.

The high court will decide by the end of the month whether the Constitution gives gays the right to marry. The court’s actions until now have suggested that a majority of the nine justices will vote to legalize same-sex weddings nationwide.

Should the court rule otherwise, it would throw gay rights into turmoil across the country, halting weddings in at least 15 states, raising questions about tens of thousands of unions and guaranteeing a new round of legal fights.

Greg provides a fairly good breakdown of the immediate impact on a state by state basis. Essentially, some states which have passed gay marriage either through legislation or court interpretation of their state constitution probably won’t be affected at all. These include 16 states along the lines of New York and Illinois. But in 20 others which currently allow the practice, including Florida, South Carolina, Kansas, Idaho and Alaska, such unions might stop almost immediately since they were court enforced over the wishes of the voters. In the rest of the states where there is no law allowing gay marriage, any efforts to enact change would probably be cooled down a bit.

But would conservatives really be “losing” if that happened? Even when hot topics are decided in the Supreme Court, the answer doesn’t always last forever. (Though the time required for that pendulum to swing can be generational.) It’s not as if the fight would go away, and sometimes in politics the fight is actually worth more than the victory. I’m reminded of the Roe v Wade decision in this context. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Supreme Court had either outlawed the practice of abortion or said that it was exclusively up to the states? Think about it for a moment. When the conservatives lost that one, it sparked the true beginning of the massive Pro-Life movement which continues to this day. In many states it has energized and bound together elements of the GOP and supportive conservative groups which might not have congealed as fully without that common enemy to do battle with. In some ways that fight, even though it was lost on the steps of the highest court, has provided the glue that drove conservatism forward for decades.

So what happens when (assuming it does) five, six or seven justices vote in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges? Do you honestly think that everyone is going to shrug their shoulders, suddenly realize they were wrong all along and just go home? I highly doubt it. In fact, in many of the states where the voters are most closely divided, it’s going to energize the base with an even greater interest in stopping more liberal appointments to the court in the next term. Conversely, if gay marriage is struck down at the federal level, the battle will shift back to the states and places like Florida will see a massive surge in activity by liberal, pro-gay marriage advocates eager to fight it out from state to state to state.

Personally, I’m with the professional court watchers on this one. I expect the court to find in favor of gay marriage. But conservatives shouldn’t be rending their garments too heavily just yet. In terms of political fortunes, it may just put more gas in your tank.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/20/losing-the-gay-marriage-case-before-scotus-could-be-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-conservatives-in-ages/


Hillary on TPA: I’d “probably not” vote for it

Let’s recap. Hillary Clinton spent three of her four years as Secretary of State negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), publicly endorsing the effort at least forty-five times, as Jake Tapper reminds us. Her work on TPP has put Barack Obama in position to negotiate the final agreement, something Hillary herself was apparently unable to accomplish. Now, after all that and after working for Obama for four years, Hillary has finally taken a stand against giving Obama full trade promotion authority (TPA) to fast-track a treaty to the Senate.

Well, kind of:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would “probably not” vote for fast-track authority for the trade deal that President Obama is seeking, but she acknowledged that she once said positive things about “the potential” for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

Probably not? Wow. Way to take a tough stand, Secretary Clinton. That’s probably somewhat like leadership. It will probably impress dozens of people, too.

Jon Ralston, whom Hillary kept calling “Joe” for some reason, pressed her on why she’d probably commit to not taking an action if the agreement was so good as late as January 2013:

“I said positive things about the process and the potential,” said Mrs. Clinton, who occasionally called Mr. Ralston “Joe” during the interview.

“Some people don’t like any trade agreement, and some people are willing to take any trade agreement,” she said. Asked whether she would vote in favor of fast-track authority if she were still in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton replied, “Probably not, because that’s a process vote, and I don’t want to say that’s the same as T.P.P.”

Nonsense. All TPA does is allow for Obama to finalize the treaty and get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. It’s all about the TPP, and even opponents of TPA understand that. After all, TPA is hardly unprecedented — Congress has routinely granted such authority to presidents of both parties when it comes to trade agreement negotiations, and this still leaves the Senate with the option to reject ratification. The issue for TPA opponents isn’t the authority, but the treaty itself and what it might eventually contain.

If TPP is as good as Hillary has repeatedly claimed, then TPA doesn’t matter.  Democrats don’t trust Obama that TPP is a good deal, nor do they trust Hillary’s forty-five endorsements of it either. That’s not a “process” issue, it’s a credibility issue — and neither Obama or Hillary have much of it any longer. Probably.

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell will force Democrats to choose a little more explicitly than Hillary’s “probably” this week:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is daring Senate Democrats to vote against fast-track trade legislation they supported less than a month ago.

The GOP leader has scheduled a procedural vote on fast-track for Tuesday, and is signaling he’s through offering concessions.

The Kentucky Republican believes he’ll get the 11 Democratic votes he needs to move forward because pro-trade Senate Democrats have already gone out on a limb to support fast-track — despite the cries of organized labor and other groups on the left.

McConnell also reasons that the Senate Democrats, having already voted once for fast-track, won’t want to thrust the dagger into President Obama’s prized legislative goal.

“Democrats already voted for TPA. This is what everybody already voted for,” said one Senate Republican leadership aide, referring to trade promotion authority, another name for fast-track.

Will he get 11 Democrats for TPA? The odds seem somewhat short of probably. McConnell may need a few more than that, though, since he’s likely to lose a few Republicans on the second round. Progressive Democrats want more concessions after losing the Trade Adjustment Authority (TAA) package in the deal, such as an extension on the Export-Import Bank, but McConnell will instead bring the House version to the floor for an up-or-down vote. On the last round, only 14 Democrats went along for the TPA ride, and Senators like Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, and Michael Bennet might already be rethinking their position in the face of progressive outrage.

Related Posts:

Article source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/20/hillary-on-tpa-id-probably-not-vote-for-it/


JUNE 18 & 19- Top 10 Viewers Choice Rebroadcasts

Sheila | June 17, 2015

June 17- Daniel Estulin

Daniel Estulin is an award winning Investigative Journalist, International Best Selling author and Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. He…

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/june-18-top-10-viewers-choice-rebroadcast/


The Pope’s Green Theology Calls for One World Global Governance

The Pope’s Global Green Plan is unveiled in his rare 192 page climate encyclical, in which he states, “humans are largely to blame for a dramatic change in the climate and nothing short of a “bold cultural revolution” can halt humanity’s spiral into self-destruction. Read More Here.

Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/green-pope-in-rare-climate-encyclical-calls-for-one-world-global-governance/


%d bloggers like this: